http://chineseinput.net/에서 pinyin(병음)방식으로 중국어를 변환할 수 있습니다.
변환된 중국어를 복사하여 사용하시면 됩니다.
- 中文 을 입력하시려면 zhongwen을 입력하시고 space를누르시면됩니다.
- 北京 을 입력하시려면 beijing을 입력하시고 space를 누르시면 됩니다.
RISS 인기검색어
- 검색키워드
- 발행기관 : 역사비평사 (검색결과 1,769 건)
- 무료
- 기관 내 무료
- 유료
-
이동기(Lee Dong Ki) 역사비평사 2011 역사비평 Vol.- No.96
This essay deals with principles and processes of the making of historical museum in a democratic society. In 21st century, historical museums should not be built to define political legitimacy or to reinforce national identity for some ideological purpose. As we can see the making process of the ‘House of History of the Federal Republic of Germany’ in Bonn, the democratic discussion on its fundamental purpose and substantive direction of exhibition is of great importance, in particular for a national museum for contemporary history. But, the initiators of the ‘National Museum of Korean Contemporary History’ in Seoul are neglecting the democratic process of debate and discussion in public sphere and with experts groups as historians and museum specialist. They are now only interested in (re-)definement of their right-wing political legitimation and strengthening of the Korean national identity. Moreover, in their opinion the Korean contemporary history since 1945 had been filled with ‘miracles’ and ‘successes’ which should mainly be exhibited in the National Museum of Korean Contemporary History. But, their images of the Korean contemporary history are not in accordance with various experiences and memories of most ordinary people in South Korea. The present objective and exhibition plan of the ‘historical cultural’ institution should be replaced by a new concept which would be aimed at a museum as communication space for plural democratic histories and critical reflection on historical tragedies.
-
김한종(Kim Han Jong) 역사비평사 2011 역사비평 Vol.- No.96
History education has fallen into confusion in Lee Myung Park Government, and the dispute about history education continues until now. Lee Myung Park Government aim to throw his own historical awareness into school history education. Lee Myung Park Government and conservative scholars regard history since founding Republic of Korea 1948 as ‘history of miracle’. They think that main agents making ‘history of miracle’ are political leaders such as Rhee Syng Man and Park Chung Hee, and particularly respect Rhee Syng Man as ‘father of founding Republic of Korea’. They don’t have willingness to admit historical view and history textbook contents critical to such political leaders and their government. Compulsorily modifying Korean Modern and Contemporary History textbook contents and criticizing revised Korean History textbook as left leaning are its products. And Lee Myung Park Government reinforce certification of history textbook for the purpose of controling its contents and suppressing its authors’ resistance. Lee Myung Park Government has implemented history education policies focused on political judgment than intrinsic value of history. He aims to utilize history education as the instrument of integrating people under his policies. It is because policies on history education have been confused. National history curriculum has been revised every year during Lee Myung Park Government, and school history lesson has been weakened 2009, but Korean history shall be become mandatory subject in high school since 2012. This confusion makes teachers difficult to plan history lesson and pupils learn history systematically. Moreover, it is difficult to anticipate that the reinforcing policy of history education will be effective in school and history classroom.
-
-
정태헌(Jung, Tae Hern) 역사비평사 2012 역사비평 Vol.- No.99
In order to accomplish a union between North and South Korea, a broadening of the homogenous historical understanding must be demanded, ‘The North-South Korean Union for Historical Understanding,’ which is towards a methodology of coexisting with difference, is the essential element at this stage of Union between North and South Korea. It does not mean the absorption of a single historical understanding, which connotes a one-sided nature. Whether the period needed for union between North and South Korea is long or short, it will depend on the level of union between North and South Korean historical perception. Historical exchange will incrementally increase interchange according to the level of the relationship between South and North Korea, following steps such as ‘the Period of Reconciliation and Cooperation’, ‘the Period of Peaceful Coexistence’ and ‘the Period of Union between North and South Korea’. The main contents of history interchange during the Period of Reconciliation and Cooperation, whose first task is composing the foundation of exchange, should be an orientation towards outstanding historical questions shared by both North and South Korea. In addition, ‘The North and South Korean Committee for the Promotion Socio-Cultural Cooperation.’ as an organization that operates between South and North Korea authorities ‘The North and South Korean History Exchange Agreement.’ Likewise, ‘The Account for History Interchange Between North and South Korea’ by the Inter-Korean Cooperation Fund. In the North, the Ministry of Unification’s administration guide, which maintains an ‘anti-market’ policy and which that fails to provide research funds for North Korean scholars, should be changed. Following this an array of ‘cultural agreements’ can be signed between North and South Korean authorities marking ‘the Period of Peaceful Coexistence’. The primary theme of history exchange at this point should be the reexamination of political difference between each history so as to find signs for a methodology that can relieve hostilities. The founding of ‘The Inter-Korea Committee for Historical Interchange and Promotion’ as well as subcommittees classified by each subject of exchange is demanded. Henceforth the biggest theme of history exchange is the completion of the methodology of ‘The North-South Korean Union for Historical Understanding’ and reaching the level of cooperation where ‘The Joint North-South Korean Commission on History’ can compile a collaborated historical outline publication.
-
송충기(SONG, Chung-ki) 역사비평사 2013 역사비평 Vol.- No.102
This article aims to introduce the development of oral history in Germany to Korean readers. Immediately after the end of World War II in 1945, German contemporary historians made great efforts to document and clarify the period of the Third Reich, but they did so without contemporary witnesses, because for them oral interviews were not as valuable as written historical sources. It was only in the 1970s that oral history was ‘imported’ to (West) Germany by a prominent contemporary historian, Lutz Niethammer. He and his colleagues, Alexander von Plato among them, established oral history as a viable research tool in German historiography by carrying out several major oral history projects on the working classes in Ruhr region and in East Germany before reunification. They pointed out that oral history was a powerful tool for understanding people’s experiences,a notion which had not been widely accepted in German academic history. Oral history also played an important role in communication between workers and historians in the 1980s. Recently, many oral history projects have focused on ‘victims of history’, such as those who had been oppressed by the Nazis, Holocaust survivors, forced labourers, etc., where emphasis is placed on memory. Oral history in Germany has made a great contribution to deepening and widening its historiography, but it would be premature to paint a rosy picture for the future, because of the number of challenges it faces.
-
-
-
-
-
KCI
DBpia연관 검색어 추천
이 검색어로 많이 본 자료
활용도 높은 자료
